Infinitely variable, order specific, holistic assembly process control system

ABSTRACT

Interfaces are provided which integrate mistake-proofing concepts in a way easily understandable by the operator and easily configured by a manufacturing engineer. As mistake-proofing concepts are developed tables are populated and associated with specific assembly processes. Sensors are employed to monitor parts selection and tool usage. Sensors used for tool use and parts selection, error messages and actions to be performed or monitored are all defined and related in the tables and in turn to specific assembly orders. The tables are also populated with logic pointers, which are referenced by a Process Logic Control (PLC) unit that has been programmed to recall and carry out infinitely variable monitoring or control of the assembly process. For example when a particular order has been identified to the PLC by way of a scanned barcode or other means, a bill of material and assembly sequence is provided to the operator by appropriate means such as a CRT monitor. Parts bins and assembly points may be indicated by visual or other means to indicate parts and tools to be used and assembly points. Sensors determine when the proper part has been selected for the particular assembly step and/or whether the appropriate tool is used. The PLC then provides feedback to the operator to indicate whether all necessary steps have been accomplished in the proper order, with the proper parts using the proper tools. The PLC will provide the operator with understandable error messages indicating when a step has been improperly completed. The PLC can also control stops on the line to prevent the assembly from moving forward until all steps have been completed according to the specific order program. An override means may also be provided to bypass the PLC controls in which case an error log is compiled and an automated message is sent to supervisory personnel indicating that the system was overridden by the operator and follow up action is required.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application is a division of applicant's co-pending applicationU.S. Ser. No. 10/767,799, filed 29 Jan. 2004 and titled INFINITELYVARIABLE, ORDER SPECIFIC, HOLISTIC ASSEMBLY PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM,which application is pending.

This application claims priority under 35 USC § 119(e) from U.S.Provisional Application 60/444,416 filed Feb. 3, 2003 under 35 USC § 111(b).

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to computer implementedmanufacturing systems. More particularly, the present invention relatesto computer integrated manufacturing workstations wherein production andassembly of parts are monitored. Specifically, the present inventionrelates to an infinitely variable, order specific, mistake-proofingsystem for ensuring quality in a production or assembly environment.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

While the use of automated production and assembly systems in productmanufacturing is well known, such work is still predominatelyaccomplished manually by human operators. In a typical manufacturingfacility, one or more operators may be required to build one or moreassemblies using a number of tools, steps and component parts. Suchoperations are subject to a number of opportunities for error i.e.omission of required parts, use of the wrong assembly tool, use of thewrong part in a particular location, incorrect torque, etc. Theseproblems are only compounded in facilities where numerous models orvariations of parts are assembled on the same line. Such errors ordefects, if left undiscovered result in recalls, rejections by customersor returns or warranty claims by end users, all causing a great deal ofexpense for the manufacturer, distributor and dealer, and a generaldissatisfaction among end users. The flowchart of FIG. 1 illustrates atypical assembly process as may be used in a product manufacturingfacility. At 101 a product enters a workstation. At 102 the operatoridentifies the particular product model from a paper schedule. At 103the operator identifies the work to be performed for the particularproduct model from a paper subschedule document. The operator thenperforms the required work from the subschedule document at 104. Whenthe operator determines that all required work has been completed, theoperator at 105 moves the product to the next workstation. At this point106 no means are in place to confirm whether all required work has beenperformed. Thus the product is moved down the line with all requiredwork having been completed or without all required work having beencompleted, resulting in a good product at 108 in the first instance or adefective product at 107 in the second instance. In either instance theproduct is passed down the line and the operator starts the process overon the next product at 109. Accordingly, an unacceptable percentage ofproducts are passed down the line without all assembly steps having beencompleted. In some cases the defect is discovered at subsequentworkstations and is later remedied, but in some cases the product makesit all the way to the end user before the defect is discovered.

Thus, in recent years a concerted effort has been made by manymanufacturers to improve quality and reduce manufacturing errors ordefects. The effort to improve the quality of products and attain costsavings by the manufacture of products without error is a continuousgoal. A number of efforts to attain these goals have been attempted inthe past. However, in the assembly process the human factor is difficultto include in a mistake-proofing system. Numerous tools and techniqueshave been developed to aid in controlling the assembly process, butattempts to date have only been capable of monitoring single productconfigurations or are so expensive and complicated to configure, deployand sustain that they are virtually impractical. Some of these effortsdo well to transfer design knowledge and make it accessible tomanufacturing operators, yet stop short of the actual control of themanufacturing process. Other initiatives combine instructionalinformation and testing with process reporting. These are limited to notallowing the display of the next instruction set and instructions arespecific to each product. This strategy is good, but in a manufacturingsituation where an assembly line has significant variability in productconfiguration, it is not manageable. Other known efforts incorporate avariety of sensing devices into the monitoring of a machining process.In this approach, the machine is pre-programmed and the variability ofhuman actions do not come into play, and the resultant corrections ofmachine function to correct a sensed error must be programmed as well.Still other approaches go to considerable effort to assure that thecorrect part combinations in a significantly variable assembly processare available and managed. While these approaches do much toward alwaysknowing where a product is in the assembly process and that thecomponents are available and accounted for, they do not go beyond thiscomponent matching, and tracking strategy to improve quality. In orderto be practical, mistake-proofing must be order specific at thecomponent level and must be adaptable to mixed model productionscenarios. First and foremost the human factor must be assured.

As such, there is a clear need in the art for a holistic, order specificmistake-proofing system for assembly operations which is infinitelyvariable and adaptable to a variety of manufacturing scenarios, whileaddressing the human factor. Without the mistake-proofing methoddescribed below, the number of methods, tools, and options formistake-proofing are limited by a variety of typical assembly processcomplications that limit what methods can be used to solve individualprocess or part verification techniques. Such things as product optionconfigurations, mixed model production, and cycle time at a givenassembly station make previous solutions impractical.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

To be successful in the creation of an effective yet holisticmistake-proofing method that is flexible enough to be utilized for allmanner of production situations and product variability encountered inmanufacturing, it is necessary to integrate source data to minimize theerror risk of data duplication. It is thus necessary to design asolution to utilize any and all configurations to minimize maintenance.The creation of standardized approaches can greatly simplify thecomplexity and drive implementation savings through the economy ofscale. The human interface needs to utilize technology to allow for asystem to automate and eliminate the interaction of the individualrequired in as many ways as possible. The method needs to provide forclosed loop processes, and the notification of errors in clear, conciserecognizable language when errors do occur. The system for monitoringassembly processes needs to be an open architecture design toaccommodate any currently available sensing device and also futuredevices not yet available. The assembly process mistake-proofingstrategy needs to prevent further movement of the product along theassembly line until sensed errors are corrected, and if not correctable,reported, so product disposition can be resolved.

In view of the foregoing, it is an object of the invention to provide anintegrated assembly process monitoring and mistake-proofing system.

Another object of the invention is the provision of an integratedassembly process monitoring and mistake-proofing system that is orderspecific for mixed model assembly scenarios.

A further object of the invention is to provide an integrated assemblyprocess monitoring and mistake-proofing system that is holistic andinfinitely variable.

An additional object of the invention is the provision of an integratedassembly process monitoring and mistake-proofing system that takes intoaccount the human factor and ensures proper assembly of parts by way ofeasy to use non-intrusive operator interface.

In the approach taken by the present invention, current typicalmanufacturing practices and process analysis methods are used to developthe product structure, product specifications, assembly processes, andquality controls. All of this data is stored in locations typical ofmany manufacturing operations. One of these steps is a Process FailureMode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA). The result of a PFMEA for a givenassembly station is referred to as Risk Priority Number (RPN). Thepurpose of this method and the value of the RPN result is to identifyassembly processes that are not adequately controlled enough to assure aprocess that will deliver the highest expected levels of quality duringthe production process. All product processes for the given productionassembly station are evaluated so that a strategy to address theidentified shortcomings. Once the critical processes are identified anda strategy developed, the Manufacturing Engineer (ME) assures thatassembly station layout, tool locations, and part locations are defined,labeled for clarity and maintained. This is important not just forsystem development, but it is a good manufacturing practice in general.Once this effort is completed the configuration of the assembly stationfor mistake proofing can begin. Facilities Engineering, a.k.a.Integration Engineers (IE), order necessary part indication hardware,Process Logic Controls (PLC's) or expand existing PLC capability toaccommodate part indicator lights for part locations called out by theME assembly station layout. These components are installed and wired tothe PLC and logic for their control is configured and logged in withnecessary data locations pre-defined. This method allows forstandardization of a part indication configuration and enables a verysimple interface for ME to setup and maintain part indications. As soonas ME has defined the part locations, and the PLC is enabled, theControl Plan Delivery System will adapt product Bill of Material (BOM )information to indicate parts used for the given product being assembledat the assembly station based on the order identified in that station atthat time. A number of methods to identify work at a given station canbe utilized. At a launch station in a given assembly zone, a barcodescan of a serial number can be utilized, then the completion of thatproduct can transfer the serial number data to next station or anothersubassembly line upon completion, so as to act as a queue for work to beassembled in a set order. A product tracking system may also be utilizedto develop and deliver this work queue of serial numbers for a givenzone. In the development of product structure, assemblies that arecombining component parts to make up a given order are assigned to theassembly station where the work will be preformed. A given serial numberwill combine these assembly numbers at a given station, and in turndefine the order specific components required for that serial number, atthat station, with the current specifications for that day's build. Fora given assembly, a single component, a combination of components, asingle process, or combination of processes or all components andprocesses, may have been identified as high risk, during PFMEA analysis.To address this infinitely variable combination of component parts, andprocess risk abatement, a unique approach is defined by the presentinvention. A definition of specific actions to address and individualprocess risks is defined by ME. Each action can be designed to look fora sensor state change, a count of sensor state changes, and/or triggerany combination of logic events which have been pre-programmed into PLClogic. The action configuration is infinite by design. Once the actionis defined, an appropriate understandable error message is alsodescribed for the Control Plan Delivery System to display to theoperator so that he or she is aware that a specific action has failed.The definition of these actions is sent to IE and a requestedaffectivity date established. The IE purchases appropriate hardware andinstalls and programs logic in the PLC. The IE then stores theinformation as required. In most typical production operations, a givenassembly process requires that multiple actions be monitored to assurequality. To avoid redundant work, the actions defined above can bere-assigned and combined to address variations of one assembly toanother where, for example, the only difference may be locations ofindividual parts. To simplify and reduce effort, the ME is given a meansto simply select any combination of defined actions into an actiongroup. Once the action group is described and affectivity date logged,it is then related to an assembly number. Another method to reducemaintenance and workload is utilized wherein an Action group isapplicable to many assembly numbers in a given station, here the ActionGroups can be associated to multiple assemblies. The definition of theseAction Groups is sent to IE and a requested effectivity dateestablished. The IE programs logic in the PLC. The IE then stores theinformation as required for the system. The system is thus capable of aholistic approach which can address infinitely variable and/or orderspecific sequences; with the ability to monitor any critical assemblyprocess, trigger any number of actions and processes if a process is inerror, or allow the release of the product to the next assembly stationif process was within the control defined.

The foregoing and other objects of the invention together with theadvantages thereof over the known art, which will become apparent fromthe detailed specification which follows are attained by a system whichutilizes existing and proven technologies in a new way. Interfaces areprovided which integrate mistake-proofing concepts in a way easilyunderstandable by the operator and easily configured by a manufacturingengineer. As mistake-proofing concepts are developed, tables arepopulated and associated with specific assembly processes. Sensors areemployed to monitor parts selection and tool usage. Sensors used fortool use and parts selection, error messages and actions to be performedor monitored are all defined and related in the tables and in turn tospecific assembly orders. The tables are also populated with logicpointers, which are referenced by a Process Logic Control (PLC) unitthat has been programmed to recall and carry out infinitely variablemonitoring or control of the assembly process. For example, when aparticular order has been identified to the PLC by way of a scannedbarcode or other means, a bill of material and assembly sequence isprovided to the operator by appropriate means such as a CRT monitor.Parts bins and assembly points may be indicated by visual or other meansto indicate parts and tools to be used and assembly points. Sensorsdetermine when the proper part has been selected for the particularassembly step and/or whether the appropriate tool is used. The PLC thenprovides feedback to the operator to indicate whether all necessarysteps have been accomplished in the proper order, with the proper partsusing the proper tools. The PLC will provide the operator withunderstandable error messages indicating when a step has been improperlycompleted. The PLC can also control stops on the line to prevent theassembly from moving forward until all steps have been completedaccording to the specific order program. An override means may also beprovided to bypass the PLC controls in which case an error log iscompiled and an automated message is sent to supervisory personnelindicating that the system was overridden by the operator and follow upaction is required.

To acquaint persons skilled in the art most closely related to thepresent invention, one preferred embodiment of the invention thatillustrates the best mode now contemplated for putting the inventioninto practice is described herein by and with reference to, the annexeddrawings that form a part of the specification. The exemplary embodimentis described in detail without attempting to show all of the variousforms and modifications in which the invention might be embodied. Assuch, the embodiment shown and described herein is illustrative, and aswill become apparent to those skilled in the art, can be modified innumerous ways within the spirit and scope of the invention—the inventionbeing measured by the appended claims and not by the details of thespecification.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

For a complete understanding of the objects, techniques, and structureof the invention, reference should be made to the following detaileddescription and accompanying drawings, wherein:

FIG. 1 is a flowchart showing a representative prior art assemblyprocess without mistake-proofing;

FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram showing the networked data processingsystem according to the invention;

FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing the process for utilizing the invention ina sequential assembly process (work has to be done in a defined sequenceof events);

FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing the process for utilizing the invention ina non-sequential assembly process (work can be done in a random sequenceof events);

FIG. 5 is a flowchart that illustrates the mapping process foridentifying and implementing the data of the invention;

FIG. 6 is a flowchart that illustrates the mapping process for partlocation and indication assignment; and,

FIG. 7 is a flowchart that illustrates the action group and actiondefinition creation process.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

Referring first to FIG. 2 it will be seen that the invention of thepresent application is implemented using a networked data processingsystem. A mainframe server 201 is provided, containing all currentproduct specifications including product bills of material (BOM),tooling, time standards and order configurations. Manufacturingengineering personnel enter data via a terminal at 202 into anoperations data server at 203. This data includes assignment ofassemblies to operations and defines part/bench locations. Actiondefinitions (specific sensors or PLC action) are also entered, alongwith error messages to be displayed if an action fails. Actions arecollected and assembled into action groups, which are in turn related toassemblies. Visual aids for assembly operations may be provided andrelated to specific assemblies. At 204 Systems Integration personnelcreate PLC logic, tag names, and program IDs based upon the definitionspreviously provided by manufacturing engineering personnel. Thisinformation is loaded into the PLC at 205 along with appropriateinformation to trigger logic provided in operation data tables, which inturn trigger functions based upon specific assembly configurationrequirements. The PLC is in communication with sensors provided at theworkstation 206. The sensors may be used to indicate and detect partsselection, tool usage, line or part orientation etc. The PLC is alsopreferably linked to electromechanical stops to prevent a part fromleaving the workstation until all necessary assembly steps have beencompleted. A terminal or PC is provided at 207 and is physically locatednear the workstation. The PC (207) is in communication with theoperations data server (203) to retrieve the operation specific datarelating to the specific operations for the particular workstation. ThePC (207) then utilizes the information from the operations data server(203) to retrieve source data relating to BOM, tooling, orderconfiguration, etc., from the host server (201). A visual display isthen provided to the operator indicating BOM, assembly sequence andinstructions along with visual aids, if appropriate. The PC at 207 isalso in communication with the PLC (205) via an OPC server at 208. TheOPC (object linking and embedding for process control) allows the PC at207 to communicate with the PLC at 205. As the operator completes stepsin the assembly process the sensors at 206 are triggered to indicate tothe PLC (205) that particular parts have been selected and particulartools have been used. Parts indicators such as lights may be provided inparts bins, indicate which parts are to be selected and the PLC (205)can trigger the light to go out once the part has been correctlyselected. When the operator concludes that all necessary assembly stepshave been completed, the operator sends a “Next” message from terminal207 via the OPC server (208) to the PLC (205), which returns a logiccode to, the terminal 207. The logic code will indicate whether allnecessary steps have been completed and if not, which steps were notcompleted properly. The PC (207) then interprets the logic code anddisplays appropriate error messages to the operator indicating whichsteps were not completed properly. This allows the operator to remedythe defect. Conversely, if all necessary steps were completed properlythe PLC (205) will release the electromechanical stops at 209 to allowthe part to be sent to the next workstation. [0022] An assemblyworkstation sequential mistake-proofing process according to theinvention is shown in FIG. 3. At 301 a base part enters the workstation.At 302 the conveyance system or operator uses appropriate means toidentify the base part to the system. Identification may be made bymeans of a scanned barcode, RF tag, entry of an identifier or otherappropriate means. At 303 the system then uses the ID information toretrieve and display all assembly specific information necessary for theoperator to begin working on the assembly. Steps are ranked according toassembly sequence. The system then sends BOM part bin locationinformation to the PLC for the specifically identified assembly at 304.The PLC then activates appropriate parts bin indicators at 305. At 306the system determines if assembly tools are interfaced to the system forthe particular assembly identified. In some workstations,mistake-proofing integration may not be required because it may be asingle task performed or the product may be designed in such a way tonot allow a mistake to occur or progress beyond this position. At 307 iftools are interfaced, the system indicates such to the operator at theworkstation terminal. The assembly program for the particular assemblyidentified in the PLC triggers appropriate ladder logic at 308. At step309 the PLC activates the proper interfaces for parts indicators,orientation, tool usage inputs, bin sensors etc. as required. At 310 theoperator begins work on the assembly according to the sequence displayedat the workstation terminal. Once the operator has completed all thenecessary steps and the PLC has detected such, the PLC will send amessage to the system at 311. At 312 the system determines whether allranked assembly steps have been completed. If not, the system returns tostep 304 and the sequence is repeated for the next ranked assemblysequence. When at 312 the system recognizes that all ranked assemblysequences have been completed, the system at 313 sends a message to thePLC to release the assembly for position advance i.e. releaseelectromechanical stops. The entire process is then repeated beginningat 301 for the next part. If at step 310 the operator determines thatall steps have been completed but the PLC has not indicated such to thesystem the operator will attempt to send a “Next” message to the systemat 314. At 315 the system will then check the PLC address to verify thatall steps have been completed. If the PLC confirms that all steps arecomplete, a message is sent to the system at 316 to proceed to step 312.If at 315 the PLC indicates that work has not been completed properly amessage is sent to the terminal indicating which steps are incomplete at317. The sequence then begins again at 310. In the event that theoperator has completed the work at step 310 but the PLC has not sent themessage of 311, the operator may contact supervisory personnel at 318 toinitiate an override of the system at 319. Returning now to step 306,the system determines whether tools are interfaced to the PLC for theparticular assembly identified. If at this point the system determinesthat no tools are interfaced, the operator is notified of such at theterminal at step 320. The operator then performs the work at step 321and sends a message to the system at step 322 indicating that work iscomplete. The system then sets to step 312.

With reference to FIG. 4 it will be seen that an assembly workstationnon-sequential mistake-proofing process according to the invention isidentical in many respects to the sequential process previouslydiscussed, except that step 312 is not included in the non-sequentialprocess of FIG. 4. More particularly, because there is no sequentialranking of steps it is not necessary to verify each step, instead it isonly necessary to verify that all work is complete. Thus after the stepsof 311, 316 and 322 the sequence steps to 313.

With reference now to FIG. 5 it will be seen that the process foridentifying, programming, and implementing the system with theappropriate mistake-proofing data is graphically illustrated. Beginningat 500 a Control Plan Delivery Team reviews and cleans all necessarysource data. At 501 the Manufacturing Engineering personnel identifyhigh RPN (Risk Priority Number) processes from appropriate PFMEA(Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) studies to be targeted formistake proofing. Once the target processes have been identified a mapis created at 502 of the work content for the particular line/operationin which the process is used. A list of necessary tooling and/or gagingis compiled at 503. The manufacturing engineer then identifies theaffected part numbers at 504. At 505 the manufacturing engineeridentifies the production flow rate, D_(c) (Design for Capacity) and themodel mix for the particular workstation. The manufacturing engineerthen correlates time study data with manufacturing engineering maps ofparts bin locations, etc., at 506. At 507 logistics personnel and themanufacturing engineer review the map and at 508 the logistics personneldetermine the overall packaging/container optimization for necessarymaterials. At 509 a decision is made, if necessary, relating tocontainer size and/or quantity. The manufacturing engineer inconjunction with operator and logistics personnel determine tote size,weights, quantities and locations for all necessary parts at 510. At 511a philosophy known as the “Five S's” is employed. For those unfamiliarwith this philosophy, the first S is for Sort or ensure that allnecessary components are available and in working order. The second S isfor Set In Order or ensure that components are installed and placed inan efficient layout. The third S is for Shine or clean the work area forcomfort, safety and efficiency. The fourth S is for Standardize orutilize uniform procedures throughout the process. Finally, the fifth Sis for Sustain or maintain the configuration with the fewest changespossible. The Five S's philosophy ensures that the workstation is in thebest possible condition before and after the mistake-proofing system isimplemented. At 512 the manufacturing engineer reviews the proposedlayout with safety and manufacturing engineering personnel. Once allnecessary personnel approve a layout the manufacturing engineer entersthe data into the part assignment interface and assigns effective dateat 513. Manufacturing engineering personnel then identify and purchasethe necessary hardware and configure the equipment to interface with themistake-proofing system at 514. At 515 the integration engineering andinformation technology personnel enter the data into the part assignmentPLC address interface and release the request for production.Manufacturing engineering personnel monitor the process to determine theeffectiveness of the strategy and provides updates as necessary, whilemaintaining part location data at 516.

FIG. 6 illustrates the process for part location and indicationassignment mapping according to the invention. Once the work stationlayout has been approved at 601, the manufacturing engineering personneldetermine at 602 whether the work station benches are arranged accordingto a standard layout or if the layout is non-standard. If a standardbench layout is to be used, integration engineering (IE) personnelprocure appropriate part indication light bars at 603. At 604 the IEpersonnel install the light bars to the appropriate part benches andwire them to the PLC or I/O card. PLC outputs are then programmed at 605to light the appropriate part location. Memory address locations from605 are stored in a Location Data Table provided by IT personnel at 606.The OPC server is then configured at 607 to identify Location Data Tableaddress locations. The web editing application 609 provided by ITpersonnel to associate component part numbers with the Location DataTable is used at 608 to load station part location data. At 609 the webediting application is provided with a standard layout entry interfaceas shown for example at 609A. The standard layout of 609A has five rowsand nine columns which correspond to bench locations defined to the PLCthus the application can be configured to recognize that a particularpart or tool is located at a particular bench location by entering thepart number into the proper cell on the application 609A. Returning nowto step 602, if manufacturing engineering personnel determine that anon-standard bench layout is to be used, IE personnel procure specialpart indication light bars at 610. At 611 the IE personnel install thelight bars to the appropriate part benches and wire them to the PLC orI/O card. PLC outputs are then programmed at 612 to light theappropriate part location. Memory address locations from 612 are storedin a Location Data Table provided by IT personnel at 613. The OPC serveris then configured at 614 to identify Location Data Table addresslocations. The web editing application 609 which has been provided by ITpersonnel to associate component part numbers with the Location DataTable is used at 615 to load station part location data. Speciallocations are provided as additional outputs at 609B as determined bycoordinated efforts of ME and IE personnel. Accordingly, a non-standardbench layout can be configured by defining special outputs in the webapplication of 609B. A maintenance loop is provided at 616 for updatingthe system. When at 617 it is determined to add a new part to theassembly process the determination must again be made whether a standardor non-standard bench layout will be employed at 618. If a standardlayout is to be used the maintenance procedure then sets to step 608. Ifa non-standard layout is required then the process must proceed fromstep 610.

FIG. 7 illustrates the action group and action definition creationprocess, in which actions and action groups are defined and entered intothe system. Specifically, at 701 ME personnel determine from appropriatePFMEA studies when and where mistake-proofing is required. It is thendetermined at 702 whether the required mistake-proofing strategy is newor if appropriate actions and action groups have already been defined.If it is determined that the mistake-proofing requirements are new, itmust next be determined whether there are any similar existingstrategies at 703. If at 703 the determination is that no similarmistake-proofing strategies exist then new actions are created as neededin the web application at 704 wherein functions and error messages aredescribed. At 705 the actions defined at 704 are compiled into newlycreated action groups, functions are described and assembly numbers areassigned to the action groups. An effective date is requested at 706. At707 IE personnel work with ME personnel to implement the necessaryhardware, to develop PLC logic for the new actions and assign logicaddresses for the new action groups. Address locations are stored in theLocation Data Table at 708. At 709 the OPC server is configured toidentify Location Data Table address locations. An enable date is set at710. Returning now to step 703, if it is determined that a similarmistake-proofing strategy already exists the process moves to 711 wherenew actions are created as needed in the web application and functionsand error messages are described. At 712 the actions defined at 711 arecombined with existing actions and compiled into newly created actiongroups, functions are described and assembly numbers are assigned to theaction groups. The process then moves to 706. At 702 if it is determinedthat no new mistake-proofing strategies are required i.e. appropriateaction groups already exist, it is only necessary at 713 to assign newassembly numbers to the preexisting action groups and request aneffective date at 714.

It should now be recognized that the mistake-proofing system of thepresent invention is a highly adaptable, infinitely variable holisticapproach to the assembly process. By defining specific actions and thencompiling action groups the process allows subsets of assemblyinformation to be used in multiple model configurations whereinidentical assembly steps are used. Accordingly, it is not necessary toredefine an action or action group when a step is to be reused or usedin another model assembly, instead it is only necessary to program apointer into the system to retrieve the action or action group data.Based upon the updated assembly information an operator can flawlesslytransition from one model to another in a mixed model scenario by simplyscanning a bar code that triggers the retrieval of all necessaryassembly information. Changes to an assembly process are seamlesslyintegrated by making simple changes in the system without the need toretrain operators.

Thus it can be seen that the objects of the invention have beensatisfied by the structure presented above. While in accordance with thepatent statutes, only the best mode and preferred embodiment of theinvention has been presented and described in detail, it is not intendedto be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise formdisclosed. Obvious modifications or variations are possible in light ofthe above teachings. The embodiment was chosen and described to providethe best illustration of the principles of the invention and itspractical application to thereby enable one of ordinary skill in the artto utilize the invention in various embodiments and with variousmodifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated. All suchmodifications and variations are within the scope of the invention asdetermined by the appended claims when interpreted in accordance withthe breadth to which they are fairly and legally entitled.

1. (canceled)
 2. (canceled)
 3. (canceled)
 4. A process for identifying,programming, and implementing a system with appropriate mistake-proofingdata comprising the steps of: reviewing and cleaning all necessarysource data; identifying high RPN (Risk Priority Number) processes fromappropriate PFMEA (Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) studies tobe targeted for mistake proofing; creating a map of the work content forthe particular line/operation in which the process is used; compiling alist of necessary tooling and/or gaging; identifying affected partnumbers; identifying the production flow rate, D_(c) (Design forCapacity) and the model mix for the particular workstation; correlatingtime study data with manufacturing engineering maps of parts binlocations; reviewing the map and determining the overallpackaging/container optimization for necessary materials; determiningappropriate part container size and/or quantity; determining tote size,weights, quantities and locations for all necessary parts; reviewing theproposed layout with safety and manufacturing engineering personnel;entering the data into a part assignment interface and assigning aneffective date; identifying and purchasing the necessary hardware andconfiguring the equipment to interface with the mistake-proofing system;entering the data into the part assignment PLC address interface andreleasing the request for production; monitoring the process todetermine the effectiveness of the strategy and providing updates asnecessary, while maintaining part location data.
 5. (canceled) 6.(canceled)